Lundy Bancroft's book "Why Does He Do That?" has come up a couple of times on these boards, and prompted by that, I wanted to ask about others' opinions on what it says about gender roles in general. I have finally read it this summer, and it was eye-opening. For those who haven't read it, here is the summary:
1) More than a dozen common myths about abusive men (men are the topic of the book) are exploded, such as 'he was abused himself', 'he can't control his feelings', 'he needs anger management skills', 'he has low self-esteem', etc. Those are all a smoke screen.
2) Abusive behavior confers many benefits to the abusive man and is thereby reinforced. By intimidating the victim, he gets free labor (e.g., housework, childcare), tending to his physical and emotional needs without reciprocating (something for nothing), freedom from accountability, etc. These are the true drivers of the abuse dynamics.
3) Abusive behavior is not a problem of feeling, but of thought. Abusive men think themselves entitled, and resort to abuse/violence/intimidation/whatever in order to maintain the entitlement. Oftentimes, it is a calculated intimidation. The anger is not a reaction that cannot be controlled, but a tool. As the author puts it, "they are not abusive because they are angry, they are angry because they are abusive".
4) The author served as a counselor for hundreds of abusive men, who gave him insight, willingly or by slip of tongue, into their thinking. (For example, when doing role play sketches, the men would voluntarily give advice on how to make it more realistic, revealing how calculated they can be about intimidation.) From this he derives authority to speak on the subject. From this he also makes a very dim prognosis of hopelessness when it comes to changing abusive behavior.
This is where the book ends. Basically, the abuse comes from the sense of superiority, greater rights than the woman's, and entitlement. This seems plain enough in our culture. We know what non-abusive men are like, and we contrast them with those who are controlling, coercive, verbally or physically abusive, etc. The abusive personality is clearly a defective personality that women need to stay clear of. But, step outside the mainstream American culture, and venture into Middle East, Japan, or the Bible Belt, and you see a culture where greater rights, entitlement, and superiority of men are woven into the fabric of society. For people there, this is how life is.
This is where the mental picture gets a bit out of focus for me and my own thoughts become difficult to follow. What are the implications? Even in what we call patriarchal cultures, there are clearly men who are abusive and those who are not, at least by the internal standards of that culture. But how does the dynamic of using abuse to maintain power translate there? Are all of these men abusive by mainstream American standards? Even in the absence of physical abuse, women provide most of the labor in the house, which is unpaid, so is basically appropriated by the man. This is one of the benefits gained by abusive, controlling behavior. Controlling the woman's sexuality is another. Women are definitely controlled by men, not always by force, but often by societal norms. Etc. The relativity of cultural values is completely exploded for me there (meaning it's clear to me that this is not a valid point of view). And yet, within a patriarchal culture, there are caring, non-abusive men found all the time. And yet, they also reap the benefits of the exploitative culture. How does one think about that?
Another spot that is out of focus to me is the elements of the patriarchal culture that are retained in the US. Women still provide the majority of free labor (caretaking of kids, elderly parents), women's sexuality is still controlled, or there are credible attempts to do that (abortion and birth control restrictions), and stereotypes are used to restrict access to some well-paying roles. Does that mean that women are exploited more than we as a society are aware of?
The reason I'm confused is that after reading the book, it is clear to me that there is no qualitative difference between what the author (and the courts) label as abusive behavior, and what men have been doing for millennia - it is just a matter of degree. Where do we draw the line? Is it at the point where the man takes it in his hands to claim more control than the society prescribes? (oh! that sound right)
Obviously, this may be a completely alien train of thought to people who have not read the book, but maybe not. I was also hoping that there would be a few who have, and who could share their thoughts. I don't have a question to be answered, I want to hear how others have thought about the book's implications.
I also understand that there are people who will find the idea of exploited women nonsense. Everybody's shaped by their own experiences. I will respect that position at this point, but it will not clarify my thinking on this book's implications so I explicitly do not want to debate that.